In the preface paragraph to my essay on regolith for ISRU, I mentioned an intention of incorporating more academic-type and technical essays for these Tuesday posts. This week we have another example, this time a review of recent developments in self-assembling and self-repairing components with potential applicability to a sustained space presence in support of in situ resource utilization. I hope you find it interesting.

Introduction

Humanity’s largest space-based infrastructure project to date, the International Space Station (ISS), required 80 launches over twelve years to create a structure massing 420Mg with a volume of 935m³ [1].  Between the launch of the initial module in 1998 and this writing in 2025, the ISS required 275 spacewalks for assembly, maintenance, and operations, totaling almost 210,000 astronaut-hours of labor, or over 8,000 astronaut-hours per year [2].  A sustained, durable presence in space, especially for space resource utilization, will require infrastructure on a greater scale than the ISS, in less accessible locations.  The highly manual, labor-intensive process by which the ISS was assembled and is maintained is therefore unviable to implement or support the structures, facilities, and other infrastructure which space resource utilization and a durable space presence beyond low earth orbit (LEO) requires.

In situ resource utilization (ISRU), materials science, and robotics can synergize to enable a more efficient, durable approach to space presence.  ISRU can provide raw materials and other forms of resources without the financial, material, and logistical expenses involved in launching everything from Earth [3] [4] [5] [6].  Developments in materials science in recent years include self-healing materials, myriad metamaterials with adjustable, tailorable properties, new manufacturing and bonding techniques, and an improved understanding of material performance under space environmental conditions [7].  Roboticists have pursued robots in a staggering array of new form factors and purposes, with advancing levels of automation, miniaturization, and adaptability.  Together these technologies suggest a new operational paradigm for a more efficient, dynamic, and durable space presence that will enable new mission objectives at increased scales.

Self-assembly and self-repair capabilities have been explored extensively in the terrestrial context, beginning with von Neuman’s seminal work on self-replicating “automata,” and reports over the past two decades highlight the importance of these capabilities for future space-based endeavors [8] [3] [9].  Numerous experiments, both terrestrially and in relevant environments, such as the ISS or on-orbit demonstrations, have established progress in key enabling aspects of self-repair and self-assembly, although these capabilities remain undeployed at scale.  Scale is an operative word, for the relevance of self-assembly and self-repair becomes especially acute in the context of ISRU and scaled space resource extraction.  Without such capabilities, it is likely expansion of space resource exploitation beyond immediate mission requirements and scientific experiments will prove untenable.  This review will address the state of the art in self-assembly and self-repair technologies and understanding, with an emphasis on applicability to a durable space presence and space resource extraction and utilization.

Self-Assembly

Self-assembly, in this context, refers to mechanisms which can join based on characteristics or prompts without outside assistance.  This latter sense differentiates self-assembly in the context of space infrastructure from the broader category of in-space assembly and manufacturing (ISAM) and its related methodologies, as ISAM requires external assembly or manufacturing agents, whether those are human, telepresence, or automatic, while self-assembly is accomplished without such external aid.  Standardized interfaces, integrated actuators, and modularity are key technologies for self-assembly; many self-assembling mechanisms will incorporate capabilities falling into more than one of these categories.  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) tessellated electromagnetic space structures for the exploration of reconfigurable, adaptive environments (TESSERAE), for instance, are modular tiles with standardized interfaces and electromagnetic actuators which can be deployed on orbit to “quasi-stochastically self-assemble into the target geometry” [10] [11].  Further, self-assembly shall be treated here as separate from “self-deploying” systems, such as inflatables.  While such systems give an appearance of self-assembly during their deployment sequence, they are effectively pre-assembled, rather than self-assembled, and the deployment sequence does not alter the assembly in content, only in arrangement.

Automation is a core capability for many forms of self-assembly, although local algorithmic self-assembly based on swarm dynamics is an alternative path, explored in depth in the section on modular robotics.  Zhang et al. identify modularity, reconfigurability, and autonomy as core capabilities for upcoming spacecraft design; they are similarly core to self-assembly [4].  Lu et al. developed a modular robotic assembly method for space applications which is automated based on visual measurements and experimentally demonstrated, and a team from the Naval Research Laboratory demonstrated an advanced automation technique using the AstroBee platform on the ISS [12] [13].  Automation alone is not a recipe for self-assembly, however.  Effective self-assembly requires modular robotic components to be assembled into a larger, useful structure, equipped with appropriate interfaces and actuators to affect the assembly.

Modular robotics

Modularity may be the key capability for self-assembly technology.  By making each unit standard and interchangeable, diverse configurations can be achieved without modification to the base form or the underlying technologies involved in the device.  It also allows for iterative upgrading, adaptation, and improvement without replacing the entire structure.  This latter context is most common in reference to spacecraft, and is being incorporated into traditional satellite design, but is separate from self-assembly, being more pertinent to traditional ISAM [4] [14].  Modular robotics with reference to self-assembly involves identical or nearly identical components which use local logic to develop large scale patterns, often bioinspired by sources like ants and bees.

Swarming is one example.  The Kilobot, developed by Rubenstein et al., moves via vibrations and communicates using infrared signals reflected off the movement surface for communication and proximity measurement [15].  The physical mechanisms are not optimized or appropriate for the space environment, but the algorithms developed for the swarming behavior to allow the swarm of Kilobots to form preprogrammed shapes based only on the local information available to them and their limited computing capacity have potential in developing swarming microsats.  Fiaz and Shamma identify small size, onboard autonomy, locally actuatable high-strength bond formation and deactivation, bond formation or non-formation without communication, and local communication between elements as key to three-dimensional self-assembling modular robotics, such as the usBots they developed [16].

Swarming is an example of hierarchical self-assembly, where a larger structure is created from smaller, modular components.  This is by far the most common line of research in self-assembling robotics research in general, and in self-assembling space structures, specifically, but it is not the only line of research.  ISRU can enable serial, recursive self-assembly, wherein the initial robotic elements use native resources to replicate themselves [17] [5] [6].  Again taking biological cues, Abdel-Rahman et al. explore a terrestrial robot capable of both serial and hierarchical self-assembly with a relatively simple geometric robot [18].  These are not truly self-replicating, in that they cannot construct more of themselves from raw materials, but they can assemble more of themselves from more elementary subcomponents.  Other efforts have explored the application of self-replication to the space environment and ISRU, and the considerations involved, like Suthakorn, Zhou, and Chirikjian’s paper exploring direct and indirect robotic replication, and von Neuman’s foundational work on self-replicating automata [6] [8].

Interfaces

Standard interfaces are key to enabling modularity and self-assembly.  The traditionally bespoke nature of spacecraft engineering, the quest for commercial value, the protection of intellectual property, and the tendency towards attempted per-mission optimization all conspire to retard the progress of standard interfaces for relatively simple actions in ISAM like refueling [14].  Because self-assembling structures are not seeking to interface with other structures (necessarily), some of these standardization problems are obviated, and the concern for self-assembly lies in standard interfaces within a given elemental ecosystem.

MIT’s aforementioned TESSERAE is a particularly mature self-assembling space structure component, and its interface is a central innovation.  TESSERAE has undergone extensive testing in representative environments, including a parabolic flight, a suborbital rocket launch, a thirty-day ISS mission, and Axiom Space’s AX-1 mission in 2022 [10].  Like many efforts at self-assembly, the TESSERAE interface is based primarily on electro-permanent magnets, with potential for augmenting mechanical clamps and seals for habitat or similar applications [19] [11].

In addition to mechanical interfaces, some self-assembling systems will require electronic or other types of interfaces for local information transfer, power transfer and management, or other interactions.  Referring again to MIT’s TESSERAE, each unit functions as a semi-independent spacecraft with integral power collection, storage, and distribution systems; when connected, the individual units can form a unified power management system for the overall unit’s function [19].  Information exchange can also be beneficial in some systems, although many of the swarming approaches discussed in the previous section are built upon the algorithmic assumption of exclusively local, self-contained communication [15] [20] [21].  Some of these local-only communication mechanisms may be insufficient for large-scale space structures, which must collectively manage large-scale properties like angular momentum, temperature, and attitude.

Actuators

Self-assembly is predicated upon the ability of the component units to move in some fashion, whether it is as localized as the mutual attraction of magnetic interfaces, or as large-scale as a compressed gas monopropellant thruster array.  The actuator involved will be driven primarily by the distances involved in affecting assembly, and by the medium in which the units are operating.  The vibratory motile mechanism utilized by the Kilobots described previously is useful for their particular surface, but would be of little utility to a swarm of microsatellites operating in a vacuum [15].  The nature of the space environment and the distances involved conspire to require more powerful, and particular, motility techniques.

Thrusters of various kinds are common on spacecraft for maneuvering – hydrazine, cold gas, monopropellant, hall effect – but for many modular, in-space assembly requirements, these technologies provide excessive thrust and/or cannot be sufficiently miniaturized to be relevant.  Instead, most self-assembly proposals invoke certain kinds of ion thrusters, like Teflon-coated rods, or electromagnetic actuators [19] [22] [23].  Since significant orbital changes are not required of the individual units, and most maneuvers can be made referentially – that is, with respect to other modules within the assembly – large scale thrust is both unnecessary and impractical.  It is even possible to use component parts in a self-assembling system to form meta-actuators, like mechanical appendages, to further manipulate the assembly process.

Self-Repair

Self-repair can be divided into two core capabilities: detection of a need for repair, and the affectation of the necessary repair.  Any self-repair mechanism must fulfill these requirements in some capacity.  A more useful differentiation is between self-repair mechanisms based on material properties, and those based on systemic approaches.  Systemic approaches have robust commonality with the self-assembly mechanisms discussed in the previous section.  Detection is usually accomplished via the same sensors or communication which enabled initial assembly, and repair if also accomplished using the same mechanisms employed in assembly.  This is essentially a self-referential form of more traditional repair of a modular system.

Recent years have witnessed numerous advances in materials science which create a second category of self-repair.  These materials, or more often metamaterials, have properties such that they can intrinsically determine the existence of a failure or problem, and reflexively take steps to repair the issue.  Some require a trigger, while others will trigger reflexively.  Note the use of the word “reflexively,” as opposed to “automatically.”  “Automatically” implies a managing executor, like a brain or a central computer, which is not the case for these materials.  “Reflexively” better captures the way by which such materials repair themselves; like muscles restricting blood flow to a severe injury, without the conscious brain directing such an effort, the materials respond on their own to “injuries.”

Systemic Approaches

Systemic approaches to self-repair share major commonalities with self-assembly.  Gregg et al. take this to the system level, with reference to “reprogrammable” materials which can assemble, reconfigure, and repair units constructed from hundreds of individual “cells” [24].  With standardized interfaces for mechanical bonds, information transfer, and energy distribution, a system as a whole can use purely local knowledge to detect and address disruptions with the same mechanisms used for swarm algorithm self-assembly [15].  In this way, a self-assembling system is also a self-correcting, self-repairing system, and numerous experiments with swarming algorithms and “reprogrammable” matter (or metamaterials) have demonstrated the ability to recover from disruptions at various stages during the assembly process and after the initial assembly is complete.

Other systemic approaches are more familiar, involving fault detection at the macroscale, supplemented by submodules or other, discrete units which can be tasked to affect repairs as necessary, usually prompted by fault correction algorithms.  This is the scaling of the kind of automatic fault detection and correction already implemented on many space programs.

Material Properties

Most focus in self-repair via material properties has been in polymers and other flexible materials for use in applications like soft robotics and artificial skin [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31].  These use cases may have applications in space, such as for space suit fabrics which can reflexively form artificial “scabs” over tears or other damage to the suit, or for inflatable structures such as those being developed by Bigelow and others, but the extreme temperatures and pressures of the space environment make many of the terrestrial insights for such materials’ behaviors irrelevant or inapplicable.  More relevant to space applications are self-healing metals and more advanced metamaterials.  Barr et al. describe circumstances in which metal cracks arising due to fatigue cure autonomously due to cold welding, a phenomenon common to the space domain and which is usually considered a problem to be accounted for in spacecraft design [32].  This is an example of a material with a native repair capacity.

Other materials and metamaterials must be engineered with a repair capacity, such as through microcapsules or other implants, which is part of why polymers, gels, and other, similar materials are more commonly exploited for self-repair research and development.  Even ceramics can be engineered to self-repair, which could be hugely significant for the space industry due to their excellent thermal properties and high hardness.  Brittleness traditionally prevents ceramics from being a viable option for aerospace applications, but self-repair characteristics could reduce that vulnerability [7].

A further differentiation is between materials which reflexively repair themselves in response to fault, and those which must be stimulated in some way.  The latter, which covers a wide array of metamaterials, might correct flaws in similar ways to other materials, but require some stimulation in order to initiate the process, such as the application of an electrical current to the relevant area, exposure to a magnetic field, or even a modulated electromagnetic signal [33] [34] [29].

Future Development

Significant research is already extant on both self-assembly and self-repair; however, most of the development is focused on terrestrial applications under terrestrial conditions.  The space environment is subject to assorted conditions which depart radically from terrestrial assumptions and severely affect materials, designs, and systems which are optimized under those Earthly conditions: vacuum, radiation, temperature extremes, heat transfer limitations, differing gravity, et cetera.  While some of the technologies cited here are directly applicable to the space environment’s challenges, like MIT’s TESSERAE and the self-healing metal by cold welding technique, most of them must be developed into packages which can be tested and validated for relevant environmental conditions, possibly requiring significant alterations to the designs or materials involved [35] [24] [34].  The review paper by Paladugu et al. provides a relevant template for exploring self-repairing materials behavior for aerospace applications, although that review’s focus is more on the air side than the space side [7].

Many technologies in this space exist in isolation, without practical applications or integration into an operational capability.  Future development should focus on identifying promising technologies, increasing their technology readiness level for the relevant environment, and integrating them into operationally focused packages which are self-assembling and self-repairing.  Roels et al., for instance, explore the development of a self-healing soft robot [36].  If that kind of robot were made modular, it could potentially be both self-repairing and self-assembling, enabling a structure that builds itself and repairs itself without outside input.  Including ISRU capabilities would further enhance this paradigm’s versatility.

While artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) tools are often over-hyped, they have demonstrated significant utility in materials science, which offers an intriguing avenue by which to explore new materials for self-assembly and self-repair applications.  Such tools do not obviate the need for real-world testing and validation in relevant environments, but they can expedite steps in the technology development process.

Conclusion

While ISRU abetted some of the earliest space missions, through the leveraging of gravitational topology, solar energy, and other resources, applications at-scale and for indirect or nonscientific purposes remain projected or hypothetical.  It is generally agreed a durable, persistent presence in space requires ISRU at scales heretofore unimplemented, which in turn requires appropriately scaled infrastructure [9] [19] [3] [37].  Self-assembly and self-repair are core enabling technologies for scaling, deploying, and implementing both space infrastructure and effective, practical ISRU.  The former has significant heritage in technological development for space applications.  Self-repair is less established as an element of space system design and development, but has gained significant terrestrial heritage in recent years, positioning it to be demonstrated and developed for space applications.  Together, these technologies will be both enabled by, and enabling of, ISRU at-scale, and are key areas of development for future space endeavors.

References

[1]	National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Main ISS Poster,” 17 January 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/179225main_iss_poster_back.pdf?emrc=c7bee6. [Accessed 25 September 2025].
[2]	A. Bowman, “Station Spacewalks,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1 May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/international-space-station/space-station-spacewalks/. [Accessed 25 September 2025].
[3]	J. Esper, “Modular, Adaptive, Reconfigurable Systems: Technology for Sustainable, Reliable, Effective, and Affordable Space Exploration,” NASA Technical Reports Server, Greenbelt, 2005.
[4]	Z. Zhang, X. Li, Y. Li, G. Hu, X. Wang, G. Shang and H. Tau, “Modularity, reconfigurability, and autonomy for the future in spacecraft: A review,” Chinese Jounral of Aeronautics, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 282-315, July 2023.
[5]	A. Makaya, L. Pambaguian, T. Ghidini, T. Rohr, U. Lafont and A. Meurisse, “Towards out of earth manufacturing: overview of the ESA materials and processes activities on manufacturing in space,” CEAS Space Journal, vol. 15, no. 2023, pp. 69-75, 6 March 2022.
[6]	J. Suthakorn, Y. Zhou and G. Chirikjian, “Self-Replicating Robots for Space Utilization,” Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2014.
[7]	S. R. M. Paladugu, P. S. R. Sreekanth, S. K. Sahu, K. Naresh, S. A. Karthick, N. Venkateshwaran, M. Ramoni, R. A. Mesah, O. Das and R. Shanmugam, “A Comprehensive Review of Self-Healing Polymer, Metal, and Ceramic Matrix Composites and Their Modeling Aspects for Aerospace Applications,” Materials, vol. 15, no. 23, 29 November 2022.
[8]	J. von Neumann, Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata, A. W. Burks, Ed., Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1966.
[9]	J. T. Dorsey and J. J. Watson, “Space Assembly of Large Structural System Architectures (SALSSA),” in AIAA SPACE 2016, Long Beach, 2016.
[10]	A. Ekblaw, “TESSERAE: Self-Assembling Space Architecture,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, [Online]. Available: https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/tesserae-self-assembling-space-architecture/overview/. [Accessed 29 September 2025].
[11]	A. Ekblaw and J. Paradiso, “Self-Assembling Space Habitats: TESSERAE design and mission architecture,” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Cambridge, 2019.
[12]	Y. Lu, Z. Huang, W. Zhang, H. Wen and D. Jin, “Experimental investigation on automated assembly of space structure from cooperative modular components,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 171, pp. 378-387, June 2020.
[13]	E. Winget, “Reinforcement Learning is Making a Buzz in Space,” Naval Research Laboratory, 9 September 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/4297593/reinforcement-learning-is-making-a-buzz-in-space/. [Accessed 29 September 2025].
[14]	A. Medina, A. Tomassini, M. Suatoni, M. Aviles, N. Solway, I. Coxhill, I. S. Paraskevas, G. Rekleitis, E. Papadopoulos, R. Krenn, A. Brito, B. Sabbatinelli, B. Wollenhaupt and e. al., “Towards a standardized grasping and refuelling on-orbit servicing for geo spacecraft,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 134, pp. 1-10, May 2017.
[15]	M. Rubenstein, A. Cornejo and R. Nagpal, “Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm,” Science, vol. 345, no. 6198, pp. 795-799, 15 August 2014.
[16]	U. A. Fiaz and J. S. Shamma, “The usBot and Programmable Self-Assembly,” Harvard University, Cambridge, 2018.
[17]	R. P. Hoyt, J. I. Cushing, J. T. Slostad, G. Jimmerson, T. Moser, G. Kirkos, M. L. Jaster and N. R. Voronka, “SpiderFab: An Architecture for Self-Fabricating Space Systems,” in American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics SPACE 2013 Conference and Exposition, San Diego, 2013.
[18]	A. Abdel-Rahman, C. Cameron, B. Jenett, M. Smith and N. Gershenfeld, “Self-replicating hierarchical modular robotic swarms,” Communications Engineering, vol. 1, no. 35, 22 November 2022.
[19]	A. Ekblaw, “Self-Aware Assembly for Space Architecture: Growth Paradigms for In-Space Manufacturing,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2020.
[20]	R. O’Grady, A. L. Christensen and M. Dorigo, “SWARMORPH: Morphogenesis with Self-Assembling Robots,” in Morphogenetic Engineering, 1st ed., vol. 68, R. Doursat, H. Sayama and O. Michel, Eds., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2012, pp. 27-60.
[21]	M. Malley, B. Haghighat, L. Houel and R. Nagpal, “Eciton robotics: Design and Algorithms for an Adaptive Self-Assembling Soft Robot Collective,” Harvard University, Cambridge, 2020.
[22]	C. Pirat, P. Ribes-Pleguezuelo, F. Keller, A. Z. Marchi and R. Walker, “Toward the Autonomous Assembly of Large Telescopes Using CubeSat Rendezvous and Docking,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 59, no. 2, 28 September 2021.
[23]	A. K. Porter, D. J. Alinger, R. J. Sedwick, J. Merk, R. A. Opperman, A. Buck, G. Eslinger, P. Fisher, D. W. Miller and E. Bou, “Demonstration of Electromagnetic Formation Flight and Wireless Power Transfer,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 51, no. 6, 2 December 2014.
[24]	C. E. Gregg, D. Catanoso, O. I. B. Formoso, I. Kostitsyna, M. E. Ochalek, T. J. Olatunde, I. W. Park, F. M. Sebastianelli, E. M. Taylor, G. T. Trinh and K. C. Cheung, “Ultralight, strong, and self-reprogrammable mechanical metamaterials,” Science Robotics, vol. 9, no. 86, 17 January 2024.
[25]	R. Dallaev, “Advances in Materials with Self-Healing Properties: A Brief Review,” Materials, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 24-64, 20 May 2024.
[26]	S. Zhang, N. van Dijk and S. van der Zwaag, “A Review of Self-healing Metals: Fundamentals, Design Principles and Performance,” Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), vol. 33, pp. 1167-1179, 7 July 2020.
[27]	H. Bai, Y. S. Kim and R. F. Shepherd, “Autonomous self-healing optical sensors for damage intelligent soft-bodied systems,” Science Advances, vol. 8, no. 49, 7 December 2022.
[28]	A. Safaei, J. Brancart, Z. Wang, S. Yazdani, B. Vanderborght, G. V. Assche and S. Terryn, “Fast Self-Healing at Room Temperature in Diels-Alder Elastomers,” Polymers, vol. 15, no. 17, 20 July 2023.
[29]	E. J. Markvicka, M. D. Bartlett, X. Huang and C. Majidi, “An autonomously electrically self-healing liquid metal-elastomer composite for robust soft-matter robotics and electronics,” Nature Materials, vol. 17, pp. 618-624, 21 May 2018.
[30]	Y. J. Tan, H. Gadaba, G. Chen, S. T. M. Tan, G. Wan, G. Li, P. M. Lee, Y. Cai, S. Li, R. F. Shepherd, J. S. Ho and B. C. K. Tee, “A transparent, self-healing and high-k dielectric for low-field-emission stretchable optoelectronics,” Nature Materials, vol. 19, pp. 182-188, 16 December 2019.
[31]	C. B. Cooper, S. E. Root, L. Michalek, S. Wu, J.-C. Lai, M. Khatib, S. T. Oyakhire, R. Zhao, J. Qin and Z. Bao, “Autonomous alignment of healing in multilayer soft electronics using immiscible dynamic polymers,” Science, vol. 380, no. 6648, pp. 935-941, 1 June 2023.
[32]	C. M. Barr, T. Duong, D. C. Bufford, Z. Milne, A. Molkeri, N. M. Heckman, D. P. Adams, A. Srivastava, K. Hattar, M. J. Demkowicz and B. L. Boyce, “Autonomous healing of fatigue cracks via cold welding,” Nature, vol. 620, pp. 552-556, 19 July 2023.
[33]	Z. Hsain, M. Akbari, A. Prasanna, Z. Jiang, M. Akharzadeh and J. H. Pikul, “Electrochemical Healing of Fractured Metals,” Advanced Materials, vol. 35, no. 24, pp. 221-242, 18 March 2023.
[34]	R. Ikura, J. Park, M. Osaki, H. Yamaguchi, A. Harada and Y. Takashima, “Design of self-healing and self-restoring materials utilizing reversible and movable crosslinks,” NPG Asia Materials, vol. 14, no. 10, 18 February 2022.
[35]	R. Elashnikov, O. Khrystonko, T. Jilkova, S. Rimpelova, J. Prchal, I. Khalakhan, Z. Kolska, V. Svorcik and O. Lyutakov, “High-Strength Self-Healable Supercapacitor Based on Supramolecular Polymer Hydrogel with Upper Critical Solubility Temperature,” Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 34, no. 23, 12 February 2024.
[36]	E. Roels, S. Terryn, J. Brancart, F. Sahraeeazartamar, F. Clemens, G. V. Assche and B. Vanderborght, “Self-healing sensorized robots,” Materials Today Electronics, vol. 1, no. 100003, May 2022.
[37]	S. A. Jefferies, D. C. Arney, C. A. Jones, D. Reeves, R. W. Moses and L. M. Bowman, “Impacts of In-Space Assembly as Applied to Human Exploration Architectures,” in 2018 AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition, Orlando, 2018.
[38]	A. Bowman, “International Space Station,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 17 January 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/reference/international-space-station/. [Accessed 26 September 2025].
[39]	A. Bowman, “Station Assembly Elements,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 6 June 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/international-space-station/international-space-station-assembly-elements/. [Accessed 26 September 2025].
[40]	National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Reference Guide to the International Space Station, Utilization Edition ed., Houston, Texas: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2015.
[41]	C. Liu, Q. Lin, H. Kim and M. Yim, “SMORES-EP, a modular robot with parallel self-assembly,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 47, no. 2023, pp. 211-228, 30 December 2022.
[42]	H. Wei, Y. Chen, J. Tan and T. Wang, “Sambot: A Self-Assembly Modular Robot System,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 745-757, August 2011.
[43]	M. Yu, C. Cao, Z. Sa, C. Zhang, J. Feng, Q. Sun, X. Ma, J. Liang, Y. Sun, R. Yin, Y. Chen, Y. Liu, K. Gao, C. Yang, X. Zeng, P. K. Chu and Y. Tian, “Liquid metal alchemy: Unlocking self-healing gallium-based materials for next-generation electronics,” Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports, vol. 166, no. 101073, 26 July 2025.
[44]	S. K. Tabrizian, F. Sahraeeazartamar, J. Brancart, E. Roels, P. Ferrentino, J. Legrand, G. V. Assche, B. Vanderborght and S. Terryn, “A Healable Resistive Heater as a Stimuli-Providing System in Self-Healing Soft Robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L), vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4574-4581, April 2022.
[45]	M. U. Ocheje, B. P. Charron, A. Nyayachavadi and S. Rondeau-Gagne, “Stretchable electronics: recent progress in the preparation of stretchable and self-healing semiconducting conjugated polymers,” Flexible and Printed Electronics, vol. 2, no. 4, 18 December 2017.
[46]	D. Piskorz and K. L. Jones, “On-Orbit Assembly of Space Assets: A Path to Affordable and Adaptable Space Infrastructure,” The Aerospace Corporation, Washington, DC, 2018.
[47]	P. Thalamy, B. Piranda and J. Bourgeois, “A survey of autonomous self-reconfiguration methods for robot-based programmable matter,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 120, no. 103242, October 2019.
[48]	Z. Xue, J. Liu, C. Wu and Y. Tong, “Review of in-space assembly technologies,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 21-47, November 2021.